SAEED AKHTAR SHAHID vs STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a stenographer at Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan, who was convicted by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption under Section 161, PPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for allegedly accepting a bribe. The core legal question was whether university employees are public servants amenable to trial by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption. The Lahore High Court held that since the university employees are governed by non-statutory rules and do not fall within the definition of public servants under Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, the trial was void ab-initio. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and clarified that this decision does not bar the university from initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings against him.
- Whether employees of Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University are public servants within the contemplation of Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
- Does a Special Judge Anti-Corruption have jurisdiction to try a university employee whose service rules are non-statutory?
- What is the effect on a trial conducted by a special court against a person who is not a public servant?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 21, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Saeed Akhtar Shahid, who served in Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan as a Stenographer was sent to face trial before a learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan on the charge of receiving bribe in, the sum of Rs, 24,000/- from Umar Afzal, complainant '(PW-1) to arrange his success in English paper. Upon complaint, Anti-Corruption Establishment after preliminary investigation sent him to face trial before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Multan, who returned a guilty verdict and convicted the appellant under Section 161, PPC read with Section 5(2)
47 PCA and convicted him to undergo R.I for a period of 11 months which is being assailed through the present appeal.
2. The mainstay of the appellant is that he is not a public servant and as such could not have been tried by the learned Special Judge and as such his trial being void ab-initio, the impugned judgment is not sustainable. The legal Advisor of the Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan was sent for who is before the Court with the copy of the Charter of the University which was established under B.Z.University Act, 1975 (Act No, III of 1975). It has been conceded at the bar by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University that employees of the University are governed by its own rules which are not statutory in nature and they are not public servants within the contemplation of Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. As such, the impugned judgment dated 1.4.2004 is not sustainable which is consequently set-aside and appellant is acquitted from the charge, he is on bail; his surety stands discharged. This technical knockout nonetheless would not stand in impediment to any disciplinary proceedings Which the University authorities may opt to initiate against the appellant. The copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Vice Chancellor of the University.